Jump to content

jerryp48

Members
  • Posts

    147
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

977 profile views

jerryp48's Achievements

Enthusiast

Enthusiast (6/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges

72

Reputation

  1. What happened to these girls is truly horrible. As for the rest of the story I think I’ll hold judgement until the entire picture comes into focus. We really haven’t heard from the other side.
  2. Thanks for that link. A little deeper than I wanted to go but interesting. I tend to think the author meant it as fictional and whoever compiled the canon took it as historical.
  3. Sorry that should say Book of Esther
  4. I love the Book of Esther and the beautiful story it tells. That said, its not found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (to my knowledge) and Esther and Mordecai are not mentioned outside the Book of Esther itself (to my knowledge). The story of Joseph of Egypt tells a similar story of deliverance but its mentioned many times outside Genesis. I have no problem with it being a fictional story meant to teach a principle and don’t hold the canon as infallible. We know from the Book of Mormon itself that God doesn’t prevent errors from making their way into a sacred text so it wouldn’t affect my faith if it were fictional. Curious what your thoughts are.
  5. If that strikes you as hubris this definitely will. God’s law of celestial marriage will never be expanded to include same-sex couples. It’s not hubris it’s just seeing things as they really are. Polygamy and the priesthood ban were tough doctrines but were not dialectically opposed to God’s eternal plan. Marriage is about the propagation of family and procreation and it furthers God’s work. It’s hubris to assert that scripture and prophets haven’t been ultra-clear on marriage and how it fits into God’s eternal plan. If we truly want to help those members with SSA we’ll stop filling their heads with false ideas of future doctrinal changes that absolutely won’t happen and start working on ways to truly help them move forward.
  6. Its not lost on him, he just refuses to accept the radical appropriation of the the word gender. The church’s website is explicit that when they refer to gender they mean “biological sex at birth”
  7. So it was doctrine that the priesthood was to be withheld at that time. Thanks for looking that up.
  8. Do you have anything to suggest other the the leaders are wrong? Have you contemplated at all that they might be right and that just maybe there might be another answer? Let’s just say hypothetically they are right and are teaching God’s eternal truth. How can we move the conversation forward? Let say God confirmed in your heart that The Proclamation was eternal doctrine but did not reveal more clarity with regards to LGBTQ concerns, how might you offer hope to them?
  9. Is it settled that the priesthood ban was not doctrine? Sincere question. If so I’m not aware of the church saying otherwise. Maybe they did, I’m just not aware of if.
  10. Agreed it would be very nice if a specific revelation would given on how members with SSA fit into God’s plan. On the other hand, there are so many questions that remain unanswered as to the details of post-mortal life. My question is can and do those with SSA receive a personal witness that God indeed loves them and knows them by name without a specific answer as to how they fit into the plan and is that enough for them to carry on with faith?
  11. “We affirm that the Family Proclamation, founded on unchangeable doctrine, defines the kind of family relationships where the most important part of our eternal development can occur.”
  12. Now can we move on to discussing if “boundary lines can exist without becoming battle lines?” How can we move forward with love and tolerance for one another? This is my sincere desire.
  13. I hope this ends the “well they changed the policy on the priesthood” comparison.
  14. 1. Its true we have paid a dear price eradicating racism. A bloody civil war was fought over it and civil rights legislation was passed in the 60’s along with the outlawing of redlining. By all metrics we are less racists than we were 50-60 years ago. 2. I didn’t rebut your rebuttal but if you want admission fine you have it. He’s talked about it more than once. 3. State laws being passed are rightfully putting CRT where it belongs back at the university level where hopefully its seen for what it is instead of indoctrinated k-12 kids. They are not attempting to white wash history. Show me otherwise. 4. I shouldn’t have to argue this point. CRT is divisive and Marxist and seeks only to tear down, not to bring people together in the bonds of brotherhood as counseled by the prophet. Are you familiar with CRT? 5. Again have you studied CRT? It’s Marxism.
×
×
  • Create New...